Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 70
  1. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by evilghost
    The solution is even easier than all of this. Make the middle-east glow in the unholy unnatural light of a series of massive nuclear explosions. Send folks over there is radiation suits and take the oil. Hell, proclaim some nonsense like Manifest Destiny again. Hook China up with half of it so they STFU and don't try to get at us. Punch every liberal in the face who screams it's genocide because 98% of the time they drive a car that vomits more pollutants into the air than Rosie O'Donnell after a night of eating mexican food and crushing the rights of the Americans under the guise of freedom.
    Alright this one deserves a question. What do you propose we do with the radioactive oil we get from there? Ship it back to the US?
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Sorry, doesn't work. Growing soybean and corn costs a lot of energy (e.g. fertilizer production, machines for sowing, spraying herbicides, harvesting, transport, etc.), so the energy balance is not good enough. Besides, there is not enough fertile soil to grow more, unless people stop eating meat (most corn and soy goes into meat). Apart from that, the amount of oil consumed is far greater than the amount of corn and soy produced.
    That's why you need to genetically engineer stuff. I don't know what the net efficiency is, but it's a tiny tiny fraction. By creating our own super plants, we can shortcut nature and fix a lot of problems. I'm not talking conventional ethanol -- that's the worst idea since farm subsidies. This is a pie-in-the-sky type idea, but I think we will realize it eventually.
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    The point is that the distances here in the States a far more vast than in the EU......so we have to drive hundreds of miles more per week......so $2.50 a gallon in the US is probably about the same impact at $4.00 in the EU (of course $4.00 in the EU if taken out the taxes is probably only $1.23 a gallon )
    Unfortunately the two things that would fix that problem (distance and transport methods) are very hard to change in this country. We've already developed around the car and distances, well, that's obvious.
  4. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    That's why you need to genetically engineer stuff. I don't know what the net efficiency is, but it's a tiny tiny fraction. By creating our own super plants, we can shortcut nature and fix a lot of problems. I'm not talking conventional ethanol -- that's the worst idea since farm subsidies. This is a pie-in-the-sky type idea, but I think we will realize it eventually.
    This is probably NOT a good idea!

    Read This:

    Super-weed alert over GM link to charlock
    By Charles Clover, Environment Editor
    (Filed: 26/07/2005)

    The discovery of a herbicide-resistant specimen of the common weed charlock in fields of genetically-modified oil seed rape has raised fears that GM species may hybridise with more wild plants than was previously thought.

    The plant, found in trials carried out for the Government, was a single specimen that died before it could definitely be ascertained whether its herbicide-resistant characteristics had developed naturally or as a result of hybridisation.

    Scientists said the charlock plant had developed resistance to one form of herbicide, so could not really be called a "super-weed" - an ineradicable plant which environmentalists fear could be the possible result of genetic modification.

    Herbicide-resistant oil seed rape is already known to hybridise with wild turnip, brassica rapa, but English Nature says that this is likely to be an agricultural problem, at worst, rather than a problem that could threaten whole species.

    -snip-

    http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...26/nweed26.xml
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    It's all relative, right? We need to weigh this against the results of massive global warming.
  6. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    It's all relative, right? We need to weigh this against the results of massive global warming.
    Right, it would be a good idea to weigh it but I think Hydrogen is the way to go. BMW was a leader in this game till recently and they showed it to be very promising. There is also NG which I think is less of a polluter but, still a polluter none the less.

    Quote Originally Posted by BMW World
    The BMW Clean Energy system involves liquid hydrogen produced from water using solar power. Hydrogen as a motor fuel is the answer to many environmental problems since there are no harmful emissions, no depleting of resources, and no danger to the atmosphere.

    Since the 70's, BMW has been researching the future of mobility. The fruit of the research is the new BMW 750hL hydrogen powered vehicle.

    The heart of the 750hL is a hybrid, 12-cylinder combustion engine with two independent electronically controlled fuel induction systems. These systems allow the 750hL to run on either gasoline (petrol) or hydrogen.

    The 750hL has a hybrid 12-cylinder combustion engine capable of running on either gasoline or hydrogen. The 5.4-liter engine has two independent, electronically controlled fuel induction systems. The hydrogen engine offers excellent torque and acceleration, while the specially insulated 140-liter tank for the liquid hydrogen provides a range of 400 kilometers.



    The Process:





    Electricity generated from solar power is used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Oxygen is released into the atmosphere, while hydrogen is liquefied and stored at a very low temperature (-253 °C).

    During internal combustion, the hydrogen combines with oxygen. The resulting energy powers the vehicle, while the hydrogen is returned to the environment as water. Harmful emissions are virtually eliminated.

    By cooling hydrogen to -253 degrees Celsius, hydrogen is shrunk to a thousandth of its original volume. 70 layers of aluminum and fiberglass sheets between the exterior and interior vehicle walls insure that the liquid hydrogen remains at extremely low temperatures.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The car gets electricity from a newly developed fuel cell battery that converts hydrogen into electric current, and because it has several cells in series, it supplies enough power to keep the climate control running even when stationary.

    Working with Shell Oil Company, BMW has developed a technology for dispensing hydrogen from a filling station's pumps into a car's fuel tanks. The world's first fully automatic hydrogen filling station was opened in May 1999 at the Munich Airport.

    Other BMW Partners:

    Parabolic-trough and solar-chimney installations transform heat from the sun's rays into electricity; their simplicity, longevity and ease of maintenance make them particularly cost-effective. Solar Millennium AG and its partners set up such power stations at appropriate locations in the Earth's sunniest places.

    Hydrogen is normally a gas and takes up a great deal of space if it's stored as such. By cooling it to -253 degrees Celsius, Linde is able shrink hydrogen to a thousandth of its original volume, thus raising the energy content. Linde has also developed a special fuel tank which keeps the hydrogen at this temperature through high-tech insulation.

    Together with Messer AG, a contact-free method of fixing the inner tank in place was developed using high-temperature superconductor technology. This highly innovative technology helps keep the hydrogen supercooled for longer.

    In collaboration with IFC, a fuel cell was developed that supplies enough power for all the 750hL's electrical needs. Its high efficiency even leaves it with sufficient surplus power to keep the air- conditioning running when stationary.
    http://www.bmwworld.com/hydrogen/
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Right, it would be a good idea to weigh it but I think Hydrogen is the way to go. BMW was a leader in this game till recently and they showed it to be very promising. There is also NG which I think is less of a polluter but, still a polluter none the less.
    The problem is where you get the energy to make the hydrogen. What I was addressing was the fundamental need to capture energy from some source (modern sun, wind, ancient sun, etc.). Once it is captured, any transportation method can be used (hydrocarbons, hydrogen, batteries, giant baloons with pressurized air, cocked mousetraps, etc).
  8.    #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    Unfortunately the two things that would fix that problem (distance and transport methods) are very hard to change in this country. We've already developed around the car and distances, well, that's obvious.
    Exactly why we need at least a 15-20 year period for implementing any new technology. Which is why a short term solution also so vital, to buy us the time we need to do it.
  9. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    The problem is where you get the energy to make the hydrogen. What I was addressing was the fundamental need to capture energy from some source (modern sun, wind, ancient sun, etc.). Once it is captured, any transportation method can be used (hydrocarbons, hydrogen, batteries, giant baloons with pressurized air, cocked mousetraps, etc).
    Did you see how they were making the H? They are using the sun.
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Did you see how they were making the H? They are using the sun.
    making H with solar is fine (though I'd be skeptical about its efficiency) -- but what about the additional energy cost involved in freezing it down to -253 degrees Celsius to a thousandth of its original volume ?? And mustn't there be a auxilliary on board freezer gizmo to maintain that -253 temperature in addition to that: "special fuel tank which keeps the hydrogen at this temperature through high-tech insulation" ???

    My natural cynicsm makes me doubt the utopianistic Hydrogen "future": Hydrogen in nuclear fusion; Hydrogen via on board fuel cells; hydrogen via super cooled fuel tanks...

    These are all big insanely expensive solutions -- solutions that will always be just over the next horizon.

    We instead should be concentrating on simpler achievable ideas -- ideas that can be implemented now.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    That's why you need to genetically engineer stuff. I don't know what the net efficiency is, but it's a tiny tiny fraction. By creating our own super plants, we can shortcut nature and fix a lot of problems. I'm not talking conventional ethanol -- that's the worst idea since farm subsidies. This is a pie-in-the-sky type idea, but I think we will realize it eventually.
    In the US, the total amount of corn produced today is only about 1/4 of the oil consumed. So even if you could create a plant that can be fully transformed into some sort of fuel (which is totally impossible, I guess even 1/10 in the form of fuel would be far too optimistic), you would still not have enough fuel. Soy isn't better at all in this respect. In addition, the production of corn consumes MORE energy than it produces (at least on a calorie/food basis). So the energy balance does not work.

    Regarding the genetic engineering stuff: it is only possible to change some aspects of a plant, e.g. make it produce a bit more of substance X or confer herbicide resistance. It is impossible e.g. to boost the efficiency of overall corn or soy production by a factor of 2 or so, the basic laws of thermodynamics, photosynthesis efficiency, etc. still apply. So don't hope for the impossible from genetic engineering.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Did you see how they were making the H? They are using the sun.
    Right, but all methods for doing so are remarkably inefficient. Read back to the comments someone made on lack of land, etc when applied to plants. Same applies to photo voltaics.

    People need to get through their minds that there are two processes that we must control: harvest and transport of energy. Harvest (oil, water, solar cells, etc.) will affect global warming while transport (gasoline, hydrogen, batteries) affects local conditions (smog, etc.). Hydrogen works as a transport but solar fails miserably as a harvest (at least in its current configuration).

    I think long-term we are going to see a three-way race: organic based solar ray harvesting, inorganic based solar ray harvesting, nuclear sources. Beyond that, there is really no way to prevent releasing more carbon into the atmosphere.
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    In the US, the total amount of corn produced today is only about 1/4 of the oil consumed. So even if you could create a plant that can be fully transformed into some sort of fuel (which is totally impossible, I guess even 1/10 in the form of fuel would be far too optimistic), you would still not have enough fuel. Soy isn't better at all in this respect. In addition, the production of corn consumes MORE energy than it produces (at least on a calorie/food basis). So the energy balance does not work.

    Regarding the genetic engineering stuff: it is only possible to change some aspects of a plant, e.g. make it produce a bit more of substance X or confer herbicide resistance. It is impossible e.g. to boost the efficiency of overall corn or soy production by a factor of 2 or so, the basic laws of thermodynamics, photosynthesis efficiency, etc. still apply. So don't hope for the impossible from genetic engineering.
    I think you're focusing too much on my wording. I just named those because they are two crops we are familiar with. In reality, it would probably resemble an algae of some sort and would not be simply a replacement for existing plants. It would be a gigantic strategic initiative. Again, this is 100% not possible today. I'm dreaming. But as far as I'm concerned, that's what everyone else is doing as well.
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    I think you're focusing too much on my wording. I just named those because they are two crops we are familiar with. In reality, it would probably resemble an algae of some sort and would not be simply a replacement for existing plants. It would be a gigantic strategic initiative. Again, this is 100% not possible today. I'm dreaming. But as far as I'm concerned, that's what everyone else is doing as well.
    It would not be algae - the biomass production of the sea is very low. If you want to go for biomass, it would have to be wood. If I remember correctly, about 80 or 90 % of the biomass on earth is in the form of trees. So it would be sustainable forestry. Not a bad idea, e.g. for heating.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  15. #55  
    That's a lot of biomass, but it doesn't turn over quickly, and therefore wouldn't work. What I'm proposing is basically an organic solar cell. It would be a pretty useless substance but would capture the energy of the sun.
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    I think long-term we are going to see a three-way race: organic based solar ray harvesting, inorganic based solar ray harvesting, nuclear sources. Beyond that, there is really no way to prevent releasing more carbon into the atmosphere.
    There are other promising sources of engergy: wind is almost economically competitive in many places. Geothermal power generation or use for heating is also economically feasible and used in several places.

    But you did not mention the most easy, fastest and economic way to use less oil: more efficient use, less waste:
    The amount of energy wasted just through poorly insulated windows and doors is about as much energy as we get from the Alaskan pipeline each year. And electricity generated by fossil fuels for a single home puts more carbon dioxide into the air than two average cars. By using a few inexpensive energy-efficient measures, you can reduce your energy bills by 10% to 50% and, at the same time, help reduce air pollution.
    http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumeri...ers/intro.html

    With a higher price on oil, waste of energy would go down, insulation and other forms of energy saving pays of much faster, etc. The same is true for cars etc. It is a basic economic truth: price goes up, demand goes down. There are millions of ways of doing it without a major reduction in quality of life. Imagine people would walk more, instead of using the car all the time, even obesity would go down.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    But you did not mention the most easy, fastest and economic way to use less oil: more efficient use, less waste
    That's true, but it will not eliminate energy consumption. Eventually the world needs to find a carbon free (on a net basis) way to harvest energy and a way to transport that energy to the end user. If there is a flood coming, holding your breath will let you live longer, but only building a boat will get you out safely.
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    There are other promising sources of engergy: wind is almost economically competitive in many places. Geothermal power generation or use for heating is also economically feasible and used in several places.
    Those methods do work in places, but I don't see them ending all our needs. Storing wind energy is very difficult.
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    That's a lot of biomass, but it doesn't turn over quickly, and therefore wouldn't work.
    With all due respect, but the turnover or productivity per area is not the main factor. The area of forests is far greater than that of agricultural land, the biomass per area is much larger in woods, so you could still harvest much more biomass from woods when compared to crops, even if the productivity of forests is lower (which does not have to be the case when using fast-growing trees). Forests have the great advantage that they grow almost all by themselves, so the input needed is small (in contrast to crops).
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    Those methods do work in places, but I don't see them ending all our needs.
    True. There is not one solution, but many different ones that will lead to an overall solution - IF all of us get going, accept that there is a problem, and start working towards a solution, instead of just trying to secure oil resources in the Middle East, and denying the problem of man-made global warming.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions